As was discussed in a different thread, when is R given the benefit of clean hands....The NHFS has stated that if R fouls after the ball crosses the ENZ then they are considered to have gotten the ball with clean hands....Jrut, thanks for pointing me to the NHFS site, I didn't find a CD but I did find a powerpoint presentation... anyone that is interested, go to this link and look for slide 14 for this specific point but the whole thing is a good tool

http://nfhs.org/Downloads/Football_PSK.ppt

This is one of the inconsistencies of the PSK rule. If K does not foul, and R fouls beyond the ENZ after the ball crosses the ENZ, then R has "clean hands," and R gets to keep the ball after PSK enforcement. On the other hand if K fouls and then R fouls beyond the ENZ after the ball crosses the ENZ, they by rule do not have clean hands, and it is automatically a double foul. Hopefully they will clean this up in one of the "refinements" they mention in that powerpoint presentation. In our association we were told to delete the "clean hands" passage from the comments section on PSK (pg. 73 of the Rule Book).

I agree with what others (particularly JRut.) have said in the other thread, that the intent of the PSK rule would be to allow R to decline K's foul and keep the ball if both teams foul before change of possession and R's foul otherwise meets PSK requirements. Unfortunately based on that pesky rulebook and the NF interpretation, this has to be a double foul situation.

The way it was explained to us at our rules meeting by one of the federation's editorial committee was that PSK requires the foul by R to occur during the time a window was open. However a foul by K before the window opened would not allow the window for PSK to ever open. This would also be the case if K fouled at any time while the window was open.

Has anyone seen a definitive answer from the NHFS that clears up their conflicting interpretations?

Yes, SITUATION 13 states that it's a double foul. That's the latest interpretation from the NFHS. As PSU213 wrote, until something different comes out, that's the law.

Honestly, this isn't a big deal. The point of PSK is to prevent K from getting a cheap first down via an R foul. When you enforce a double foul, that doesn't happen anyway.

Besides, the chance you'll have a foul by both teams on a scrimmage kick is remote. The difference between replaying the down and enforcing an R penalty in this rare situation is just not that significant.

Agreed. You may see a PSK foul once all season. What are the chances that K will foul during that same play, prior to the change of possession?

Even so, the NFHS needs to straighten this crap out. They haven't handled this year's changes very well.

The only way this is going to be cleared up is use some common sense. The intent of the rule is very clear in the powerpoint and in their explaination of the rule on page 73, where they use the "clean hands" reference there as well to R getting the ball. If they did not intend for R to get the ball, then why even use "clean hands" has their reference at all dealing with this kind of play?

The NF just made mistakes on this, like they did with a couple of other rules they changed this year and they admitted they will have to take care of this year. We just had one of our IHSA Board Members elected to the NF Board, and this has been discussed with him by the folks at the NF. And the double foul was not what was endorced considering their intent of this rule.

Peace

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Quote:

Originally posted by jfurdell .... Even so, the NFHS needs to straighten this crap out. They haven't handled this year's changes very well.

I'm with you on that point!.

I finally took a look at that powerpoint file found on the NF site and while I could not find any file creation date, it looks like it was done very recently.
I was a bit ticked off at some of the statements in those "myths" charts and if you ask me, it looks like this was created for some damage control on the the part of the NF.

Even so, they missed some leye points we've been debating in this and other forums.

I wish every on good luck in whichever way they are going to enforce PSK based on their repective states interpretation. If anything, we just have to be sure we officials do it the same way from week to week across your state.

I would like to say that maybe next year the wording will be better, but I sense there are some very different views on this rule at the NF rules commitee level not to mention their insistence that PSK is not an exception to their rules. One can hope.

The only thing that is certain, JRut, is you and I need to agree to disagree on this.
I totally understand the purpose of the PSK but since K fouls, as pointed above, that window does not open at all. It is a double foul per situation 13 and per the rule book, namely 10-2-2 and even 2-32-1 and 2-16-2g. You may also want to reread 2-35. It states "A rule sometimes states or implies that a ball is dead or that a foul is involved. If it does not, it is assumed that the ball is live and that no foul has occured. If a foul is mentioned, it is assumed that it is NOT part of a double or multiple foul unless stated or implied. In the PSK rule it never states or implies that it is a PSK situation if K fouls.
Yes Fed needs to really clean up things with the new rule but until the Fed comes out and says something different this has to be ruled as a double (offsetting) foul and the down replayed.

REPLY: Steve Hall (some of you know him as SRH) was out at the Federation Interpreters' Meeting in July. He said that the Rules Committee specifically addressed the issues related to NF 10-2-1,2 and PSK. They said that it was a conscious decision <u>not</u> to change these two rules as a result of PSK and to leave it a double foul if R fouls prior to gaining possession. They knew it was different than the NCAA implementation, but they've decided to leave it as is--for the time being.

So Situation 13 on their web site is the correct interpretation--like it or not. I personally don't. And it does not matter whether K's foul occurs before the PSK window opens, while it is open, or even if it occurs after the PSK window closes. It's R's foul, and when it occurs relative to their possession of the kick, that determines whether this is a double foul or whether they have rights to the ball according to 10-2-2.

Here is the bottom line. I do not care what Situation 13 says. Not because I want to disagree with the NF, but they put out contraditory information. Again, I had this very same conversation with an IHSA Clinician, who I work with on their crew on Saturdays. He clearly said that situation was wrong to what was said on the NF Powerpoint Presentation. If you officiate in Illinois, you saw the Powerpoint Presentation. Our state does not give out rulings off the internet. Right or wrong, we are clearly told to consider this a PSK situation and R getting the ball with clean hands. Maybe that is because we have a lot of college officials in my area and that is the NCAA ruling. Whatever the reason, this was what we were told way before the season said.

Now the moral of the story, do what you state tells you. Do what your association tells you. Do what your assignor tells you. I officiate 3 sports, it is clear to me that states can and do whatever they want to do if their "head people" say, "we want to handle it this way." Best example of that is the way we are suppose to handle our sidelines in Illinois this year. And the way we are doing that, is not a NF Ruling or supported mechanically. The NF dropped the ball on this one with the different information. It is clear they did not think it through and that is why we are debating it back and forth. Situation 13 was not discussed in our meetings, so personally, I do not care what it says.

Peace

Frankly Scarlet, I don't give a damn what Steve Hall says!
 

I have read, and read, and then I have re-read Steve Hall's (aka SRH) understanding of what he came away from the Interpreters Meeting with on this subject.
<b>I disagree with Steve!</b>
Our state's rules interpreter, our state's NFHS Rules Committee representative, and two of our most respected officials from our state were at the SAME MEETING as STEVE HALL! They came away with a completly different version of what happened! They totally and without reservation disagree with "Situation 13" on the NFHS website.
<b>In our state (Oregon) in 2003, this is only a "double foul" if "R" accepts the K foul. If "R" declines the "K" foul they keep the ball after enforcement of the "PSK" foul.</b>
This particular play has been issued to all football commisioners in Oregon with the aforementioned enforcement.

You guys can argue this until you are blue in the face but:
<b>"Each state is to abide by the interpretation of their individual state rules interpreter!" per Ronnie Matthews</b>
(Ronnie's picture appears on Page 3 of your rule book!)
I believe it would be best to follow Ronnie's direction on this matter and disregard what SRH says for now because <u>
Ronnie carries a little more weight!</u> <b>Like it or not!</b>

The NF interpretor should be telling the state interpretors what to do, not the states telling the NF interpretor this is what we are going to do becuase "we" don't like your ruling.

That's what is happening and that is wrong!

States have the right (unless you can show me some legal issue that I am missing here) to do whatever they like. Especially when the "Mother Ship" cannot get their story straight. So I do not know how the NF can keep any state from coming up with a ruling/interpretation and only listening to one play, but all other information suggest something completly different. If "clean hands" interpretation was not intended, why put it in the rulebook in the explaination?

Peace

If you read the bottom of page 6 in the Rules Book you will see why each state can come up with their own interpretation on PSK double fouls.

States can modify what rule 1-7 says they can do. There are specific rules listed there and PSK is not one of them.

For the NF editiorial committee chair to come out and say to do what your state interpretor says to do really shows they have no control... and that is what is wrong.

Sorry but 1-7 does not cover rules interpretations. 1-7 covers some special equipment questions and game administration questions.

If a state wants to tell it's officials that when there is holding away from the play to not call it just like NCAA or NFL then by all means they have that right. A state can use any set of rules it wishes. NF are just the rules that most everybody uses. There have been other posts here where junior high games are using NCAA rules.

Theisey-
The bottom line is simple.
They NFHS has left some gray area's unanswered. They have recognized some of these issue's and will attempt to "fill the gaps" when they meet in January. Until that time, (which includes the entire 2003 season), if rules interpretations are required, you are to issue your questions to your state rules interpreter.
By the way what is New Yorks official interpretation?

Now lets get real,
If teams punt 8 to ten times a game, and
a PSK foul occurs once every 8 to 10 games, then,
how often will a K foul coupled with a R PSK foul occur?
My prediction is once every 80 to 100 games!
A lot of officials out there will not see this happen this season. Others will not see this happen in a career!
However, before you all stone me to death, I agree, Yes, we still need an answer if it were to occur.
<b>To get the correct answer for the 2003 season contact your state rules interpreter.</b>
Does this mean different states will be interpreting this situation differently?
Not really, I would rather look at it this way:
During the 2003 season some states will be working under the old 2002 rules while other states will be experimenting with the (2004?) rules.

My 2 cents

The confusion among the powers that be on this issue is remarkable. The California Football Officials Assn. Study Guide includes a whole section of PSK principles. Point No. 9 states unequivcally that R can decline K's foul in a double-foul situation and keep the ball after PSK enforcement. Case closed? NOT!

Last night at our meeting, we are told that Instructional Chairman John Pemberton issued an interpretation that the down is replayed in a double-foul PSK situation, directly contradicting the Study Guide.

California has now recalled the Governor and the Study Guide.

Insatty, is there any chance that Gary Coleman, or Ahhnold will issue a ruling for us??? ;)

I want Mary Carey!!

you can bet if she issued a ruling it would be a stripped down version of the rule..... :)

Even if Arnold issued a ruling, the liberal media would only want to report his 30-year-old interviews about his orgies.

### So show me then were it says that "your/my" state intrepretor can change say rule 10-2-1 to suit themselves? You can't because there is no basis for it in the book.

That comment on page 6 regarding model interpretations says it all.. If you want an interpretation, your state is to contact the NF as they are " the sole and exclusive source of model interpretations of NFHS rules".
The last sentence in that comment box obviously means nothing to some.

I also don't buy your comparision of how to handle a double foul during a PSK situation with a holding call. NF in the years past has published guidlines regarding holding so that we don't call holding on offensive linemen every play.
We all know, the point of attack and limiting the ability to persue the runner are key in the call.

There is nothing to interpret with regard to the double foul nor should any state be changing it to suit them.
Hey, don't get me wrong.. I expected the double foul rule to have been changed to match what they experimented with last season. That would also match the NCAA PSK rule. But the fact is they did not change it despite many saying they did change or are being told to enforce it as if it was changed.
I and others do not like it, but I say too bad for this year. We can put some pressure via the state interpretors to get it fixed next season.

double foul will result in a replay. Just as in NF situation #13.

If they are calling under 2002 rules, then they'll not have PSK at all.. I doubt that. Even the most rules challenged coach will know when that enforcement should be called, especially when if goes against him.
We've already seen that quite a few states are calling PSK exactly like the NCAA, and others are calling it exactly like NF situation #13. I'll bet some will be calling it somewhere inbetween.
At this point, I really don't give a $%#@, I know how I'm supposed to call it here and I'll live with it with hopes they see what refinements are needed for next season. As I see it, there are two.
1) double foul oversite. Let R deline a K foul and have their PSK foul enforced.
2) the timing window. The window starts at the snap, and not wait until the ball passes the enz.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KWH

Quote:

Originally posted by Theisey Theisey- The bottom line is simple. They NFHS has left some gray area's unanswered. They have recognized some of these issue's and will attempt to "fill the gaps" when they meet in January. Until that time, (which includes the entire 2003 season), if rules interpretations are required, you are to issue your questions to your state rules interpreter. By the way what is New Yorks official interpretation?

New York -- enforce as written. A double foul, replay the down.

Well, I guess my wait is over... Game one in the books, PSK foul on second kick by the vistors (1st quarter). Nice diving block below the waist by the LB about 8-yards down field.

REPLY: I hope K didn't foul during the down!!!!

Bob M.

I was sweating that one out until the play was over as there were two flags on the play. As luck had it, they were for the same foul.
I heard hollering from the sidelines that "it's going to PSK right? right?" Guess which team too, the team receiving team. I'm pretty sure it was 4/7 so had it not been PSK, team K would have made a first down.